3 ms·

Somehow your comment reminds me of the American public education system. It enforces a rigid, highly structured, linear way of thinking. It is very much rules-b

Somehow your comment reminds me of the American public education system. It enforces a rigid, highly structured, linear way of thinking. It is very much rules-based. In fact, we spend much of our time learning rules vs. how to think. The notion that a single construction system is better fits with this. It expresses a desire to eliminate variables, clearly define the rules, create a very tight system, etc. But, I think the statement that it forces you into more creative problem solving is exactly backwards. It may encourage resourcefulness, which entails some creativity to be sure. But, it asks "what can be done within a confined, limited space?" vs. "what can be done if there were virtually no limits?" As Americans, I think we need to improve upon the latter style of thinking. It is the source of true invention and creativity vs. mere innovation or improvement upon existing creations as encouraged by the former. Maybe this is, in part, why we see so many copycat startups and businesses built upon some iterative improvement to an existing process or idea. Instead of always asking, "how can we do something slightly better?", we need to ask more, "what else can we do?"

anigbrowl 14y ago
That's amusing, because I'm not an American. But, it asks "what can be done within a confined, limited space?" vs. "what can be done if there were virtually no limits?" That's magical thinking. There are always limits, it's just a matter of which set you pick to work within. You can draw anything you like with a pencil and paper, but if you intend a representational drawing you'll still need to think about things like perspective and dimension, even if you are bending them like MC Escher. Otherwise you get finger paintings, and while I enjoy some aimless noodling as much as the next person (eg http://snd.sc/XeyYnD http://snd.sc/XeyYnD), it doesn't go anywhere in particular.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  Never said that you were an American; only that your post reminded me of the American public education system. BTW, I also did not claim that tne American system is unique. It is only the one with which I am most familiar. Otherwise, I think it's safe to say that you missed my point. I am not advocating constant aimless noodling. I am saying that we focus here entirely too much on the importance of rules and not nearly enough on the creation of new rules. In short, perhaps you took my statement regarding "virtually no limits" a bit too literally. As it is, you present a false choice between rigid, highly structured, rules-based thinking and pointless meandering about without any basis in reality. Certainly you see a middle ground? As for my initial read on your comments, what triggered me was your statement that one system (with more rigid rules) inspired more creativity. In my view, you can argue other merits of such a system, but creativity is exactly not one of them. And true creativity is what we are sorely missing in this country and the world.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  BTW, I will also take you up on your "magical thinking" comment. In fact, removing limits is sometimes exactly what's needed to spark true creativity. Holding the rules of the current system in one's head can be terribly limiting while trying to create something new. It binds one to what is vs what could be. One can always start with the possibilities and later apply known rules. Creation is frequently an iterative process. There are many thinking styles and what seems counterintuitive to you may be what inspires others. In any case, a system that is relentlessly focused on rules certainly could use some balance. There is virtually no emphasis on pure creation or even critical thinking vs. fact-based learning.
pekk 14y ago
I don't think this is an accurate description of that system. What's true about it is that it is dealing with scale issues that don't apply for home schooling, so they need to do things like having 1st-graders line up in order to go out to recess, trying to be consistent in how rules are applied, and worrying about the cost of production of cafeteria foods. These make the system look bureaucratic because bureaucracy is the simplest way to make an institution work at scale. Also, this is an artifact of our culture: we are socializing kids into a system where they go sit at a desk and work within a bureaucracy because these are features of our culture. We are not pastoral nomads, we are not jungle hunter-gatherers, we are not inhabitants of tiny city-states. And most people in our society are not wealthy rockstar founders working in SF.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  When I mentioned rules, I wasn't referring to social rules, such as lining up for recess or not punching little Billy when the teacher's not looking. Instead, I was referring to what we teach our kids academically. That is, we focus more on them knowing the "facts". I believe that we need to spend much more time teaching how to think creatively and critically. Yes, facts are important. We just need balance. I agree with you 100% that we are teaching kids to work in a bureaucracy; creating "cogs for the machine", I like to say. But I think that's exactly the problem. We need to open up new opportunities for life fulfillment as well as paths to societal contributions. But it's a self-serving cycle. We need cogs so we teach kids to be rule-regurgitating cogs. But, how many more photo sharing apps do we need? OTOH we could use that cure for cancer or alternative fuel source or other thing that has yet to be imagined. I argue that we could be much further down some of these paths if we taught our kids to imagine, think, and create in addition to teaching them the rules.

anigbrowl 14y ago

That's amusing, because I'm not an American. But, it asks "what can be done within a confined, limited space?" vs. "what can be done if there were virtually no limits?" That's magical thinking. There are always limits, it's just a matter of which set you pick to work within. You can draw anything you like with a pencil and paper, but if you intend a representational drawing you'll still need to think about things like perspective and dimension, even if you are bending them like MC Escher. Otherwise you get finger paintings, and while I enjoy some aimless noodling as much as the next person (eg http://snd.sc/XeyYnD http://snd.sc/XeyYnD), it doesn't go anywhere in particular.

unclebucknasty 14y ago
Never said that you were an American; only that your post reminded me of the American public education system. BTW, I also did not claim that tne American system is unique. It is only the one with which I am most familiar. Otherwise, I think it's safe to say that you missed my point. I am not advocating constant aimless noodling. I am saying that we focus here entirely too much on the importance of rules and not nearly enough on the creation of new rules. In short, perhaps you took my statement regarding "virtually no limits" a bit too literally. As it is, you present a false choice between rigid, highly structured, rules-based thinking and pointless meandering about without any basis in reality. Certainly you see a middle ground? As for my initial read on your comments, what triggered me was your statement that one system (with more rigid rules) inspired more creativity. In my view, you can argue other merits of such a system, but creativity is exactly not one of them. And true creativity is what we are sorely missing in this country and the world.
unclebucknasty 14y ago
BTW, I will also take you up on your "magical thinking" comment. In fact, removing limits is sometimes exactly what's needed to spark true creativity. Holding the rules of the current system in one's head can be terribly limiting while trying to create something new. It binds one to what is vs what could be. One can always start with the possibilities and later apply known rules. Creation is frequently an iterative process. There are many thinking styles and what seems counterintuitive to you may be what inspires others. In any case, a system that is relentlessly focused on rules certainly could use some balance. There is virtually no emphasis on pure creation or even critical thinking vs. fact-based learning.

pekk 14y ago

I don't think this is an accurate description of that system. What's true about it is that it is dealing with scale issues that don't apply for home schooling, so they need to do things like having 1st-graders line up in order to go out to recess, trying to be consistent in how rules are applied, and worrying about the cost of production of cafeteria foods. These make the system look bureaucratic because bureaucracy is the simplest way to make an institution work at scale. Also, this is an artifact of our culture: we are socializing kids into a system where they go sit at a desk and work within a bureaucracy because these are features of our culture. We are not pastoral nomads, we are not jungle hunter-gatherers, we are not inhabitants of tiny city-states. And most people in our society are not wealthy rockstar founders working in SF.

unclebucknasty 14y ago
When I mentioned rules, I wasn't referring to social rules, such as lining up for recess or not punching little Billy when the teacher's not looking. Instead, I was referring to what we teach our kids academically. That is, we focus more on them knowing the "facts". I believe that we need to spend much more time teaching how to think creatively and critically. Yes, facts are important. We just need balance. I agree with you 100% that we are teaching kids to work in a bureaucracy; creating "cogs for the machine", I like to say. But I think that's exactly the problem. We need to open up new opportunities for life fulfillment as well as paths to societal contributions. But it's a self-serving cycle. We need cogs so we teach kids to be rule-regurgitating cogs. But, how many more photo sharing apps do we need? OTOH we could use that cure for cancer or alternative fuel source or other thing that has yet to be imagined. I argue that we could be much further down some of these paths if we taught our kids to imagine, think, and create in addition to teaching them the rules.